As for strategy, in general going for the side of an American WWII capital warship would probably not be the most effective approach.

After WWI the US pioneered an approach to warship armoring popularly titled All or Nothing. The idea was that any armor incapable of stopping a capital ship shell or torpedo/mine from damaging a battle-critical component (eg: the magazines), was just useless dead weight.

What this meant in practice was that US warships tended to put all their critical components in a box ("citadel") of armor that was every bit as strong (if not stronger) on the sides as it was on the top.

If one were to pick a better strategy for defeating such a ship, possibly employing some kind of really well-trained but suicidal pilot, it would probably be to target the command towers, which usually weren't in the citadel. That wouldn't sink it, but it would likely take it out of effective action for the battle. Pilots are probably a lot easier to come by than Captains and Admirals too.

As for strategy, in general going for the side of an American WWII capital warship would probably not be the most effective approach.

During WWI the US pioneered an approach to warship armoring popularly titled All or Nothing. The idea was that any armor incapable of stopping a capital ship shell or torpedo/mine from damaging a battle-critical component (eg: the magazines), was just useless dead weight.

What this meant in practice was that US warships tended to put all their critical components in a box ("citadel") of armor that was every bit as strong (if not stronger) on the sides as it was on the top.

If one were to pick a better strategy for defeating such a ship, possibly employing some kind of really well-trained but suicidal pilot, it would probably be to target the command towers, which usually weren't in the citadel. That wouldn't sink it, but it would likely take it out of effective action for the battle. Pilots are probably a lot easier to come by than Captains and Admirals too.

As for strategy, in general going for the side of an American WWII capital warship would probably not be the most effective approach.

After WWII the US pioneered an approach to warship armoring popularly titled All or Nothing. The idea was that any armor incapable of stopping a capital ship shell or torpedo/mine from damaging a battle-critical component (eg: the magazines), was just useless dead weight.

What this meant in practice was that US warships tended to put all their critical components in a box ("citadel") of armor that was every bit as strong (if not stronger) on the sides as it was on the top.

If one were to pick a better strategy for defeating such a ship, possibly employing some kind of really well-trained but suicidal pilot, it would probably be to target the command towers, which usually weren't in the citadel. That wouldn't sink it, but it would likely take it out of effective action for the battle. Pilots are probably a lot easier to come by than Captains and Admirals too.

As for strategy, in general going for the side of an American WWII capital warship would probably not be the most effective approach.

After WWI the US pioneered an approach to warship armoring popularly titled All or Nothing. The idea was that any armor incapable of stopping a capital ship shell or torpedo/mine from damaging a battle-critical component (eg: the magazines), was just useless dead weight.

What this meant in practice was that US warships tended to put all their critical components in a box ("citadel") of armor that was every bit as strong (if not stronger) on the sides as it was on the top.

If one were to pick a better strategy for defeating such a ship, possibly employing some kind of really well-trained but suicidal pilot, it would probably be to target the command towers, which usually weren't in the citadel. That wouldn't sink it, but it would likely take it out of effective action for the battle. Pilots are probably a lot easier to come by than Captains and Admirals too.